It's the first thing I hear in the morning and the last thing I hear at night. It's what I would like to hear more often in the intervening time, and what I sometimes hear when I least expect it. It's the source of some of my most creative thoughts, my best ideas and my craziest notions, and it's usually when I have the peace of mind to deal with all that ails me. It's the calm before and after the storm, the act of indecision, and the moment before everything kicks into gear. It's something we need, but rarely have, and something at our disposal, but rarely use. It's everywhere at one time or another, in one way or another, in one form or another, for some reason or another, and yet all too often, it is completely out of reach.
Silence is all this, and oh, so much more, but right here, right now, it simply is what it is. And for that, I am quietly grateful.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Corporate cough up
The road rules are clear, although not everyone agrees with or abides by them.
Other than ticketing and safety campaigns, and hoping that common sense will kick in occasionally, there's not much we can do about the average Joe out there on the bitumen.
But what about the corporate Joe? Shouldn't they be setting an example for others? I think so, and I have an idea to remind them of that.
Charge them twice, i.e., instead of a $300 fine, make it $600. Send a message to the owners and board of directors that their representatives are not doing a good job at representing.
If you think this a dumb or pointless idea, let me remind you that we can see you with your company logos and your "please report bad drivers" contact info - and don't think we won't or haven't. And they are not alone. Couriers, taxis, city workers and transit buses are right up there as primary offenders. Tsk, tsk. We're watching!
Let's send them a message: If you're going to advertise your company on our roads, do it right and lead by example instead of leading the charge and setting the tone for dangerous and careless driving.
Just a thought ....
Other than ticketing and safety campaigns, and hoping that common sense will kick in occasionally, there's not much we can do about the average Joe out there on the bitumen.
But what about the corporate Joe? Shouldn't they be setting an example for others? I think so, and I have an idea to remind them of that.
Charge them twice, i.e., instead of a $300 fine, make it $600. Send a message to the owners and board of directors that their representatives are not doing a good job at representing.
If you think this a dumb or pointless idea, let me remind you that we can see you with your company logos and your "please report bad drivers" contact info - and don't think we won't or haven't. And they are not alone. Couriers, taxis, city workers and transit buses are right up there as primary offenders. Tsk, tsk. We're watching!
Let's send them a message: If you're going to advertise your company on our roads, do it right and lead by example instead of leading the charge and setting the tone for dangerous and careless driving.
Just a thought ....
Friday, June 11, 2010
When you ad it all up
Ads on TV I get. Well, I don't actually 'get' them, because mostly I use that time to put things away, go to the bathroom, or channel surf. And, of course, when I've recorded the program I'm watching, the fast forward button is my best friend.
Ads on billboards I get, but again, I'm usually too busy watching the road or too focused on getting to my destination to actually notice them.
Ads in the paper I get, but for the most part, I don't read them either. In fact, as a result of my days delivering the paper, when advertising inclusions were at the max - Christmas, Fathers Day, Easter, 'just because' day - and each paper was equivalent in weight to a house brick, I began to develop an aversion to advertising and have turned a mostly blind eye ever since.
Ads on radio I get, except they seem to meld with the concerts and conversations and I honestly don't notice them.
I even get ads on the Internet - and shut them down as quickly as I can.
So, yes, I get it. Ads are here to stay, apparently necessary for our survival, and always trying to sell you something, from products and fast money techniques, to ideas and opinions. I accept them and will deal with them as suits the occasion.
However, after visiting my beloved Sydney Morning Herald today, I think I've hit ad overload. Not only do the ads pop out unexpectedly from the side, hover at the top of the page, and fill every other nook and cranny, but now, when clicking on some articles, we have to choose which of three ads to watch before the item we really want to see comes into view. And if we don't choose, they will for us, and then won't permit us to fast forward them into oblivion.
Up till now, I've been reasonably willing to sit idly by as ads happened to me, but now I'm expected to be involved in the selection. Which would be fine if there was actually an ad I was interested in, but sadly, that is usually not the case.
Okay, yes, over the years, I, too, have embraced the advertising medium to promote stuff, so I get it's value in many instances. And yes, there are some very clever and effective ads out there that grab one's attention and stick in one's mind, subliminally or otherwise.
However, a lot of it is advertising purely for the sake of it - i.e., annoying and silly, irrelevant and in poor taste, stereotypical and superficial, and meaningless, counterproductive and frustrating.
All I'm saying is that if we have to put up with ads on the information highway, then when we have to choose something, could we at least be allowed to choose "neither" when that is what we really want?
Ads on billboards I get, but again, I'm usually too busy watching the road or too focused on getting to my destination to actually notice them.
Ads in the paper I get, but for the most part, I don't read them either. In fact, as a result of my days delivering the paper, when advertising inclusions were at the max - Christmas, Fathers Day, Easter, 'just because' day - and each paper was equivalent in weight to a house brick, I began to develop an aversion to advertising and have turned a mostly blind eye ever since.
Ads on radio I get, except they seem to meld with the concerts and conversations and I honestly don't notice them.
I even get ads on the Internet - and shut them down as quickly as I can.
So, yes, I get it. Ads are here to stay, apparently necessary for our survival, and always trying to sell you something, from products and fast money techniques, to ideas and opinions. I accept them and will deal with them as suits the occasion.
However, after visiting my beloved Sydney Morning Herald today, I think I've hit ad overload. Not only do the ads pop out unexpectedly from the side, hover at the top of the page, and fill every other nook and cranny, but now, when clicking on some articles, we have to choose which of three ads to watch before the item we really want to see comes into view. And if we don't choose, they will for us, and then won't permit us to fast forward them into oblivion.
Up till now, I've been reasonably willing to sit idly by as ads happened to me, but now I'm expected to be involved in the selection. Which would be fine if there was actually an ad I was interested in, but sadly, that is usually not the case.
Okay, yes, over the years, I, too, have embraced the advertising medium to promote stuff, so I get it's value in many instances. And yes, there are some very clever and effective ads out there that grab one's attention and stick in one's mind, subliminally or otherwise.
However, a lot of it is advertising purely for the sake of it - i.e., annoying and silly, irrelevant and in poor taste, stereotypical and superficial, and meaningless, counterproductive and frustrating.
All I'm saying is that if we have to put up with ads on the information highway, then when we have to choose something, could we at least be allowed to choose "neither" when that is what we really want?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The Brrr! factor
Am I alone in my intense dislike of air conditioning of the cooling kind? Okay, I admit there are times during the summer when it comes in handy, but only if I am at the controls.
Most places I go, it is apparent that no one is either at the controls or has any idea how to operate the darned things. Usually, the first indication is my reaching for the cardigan or jacket or polar suit I've lugged with me to the location. Never leave home without one or the other, I always say.
Restaurants and cafes are by far the worst offenders, but so, too, are some function rooms, friends' homes, and shops and malls.
Back in Oz, we survived our youth air-conditioner free. Fans were capable substitutes, as were wet face washers, cool evening breezes, and my dad's favourite - dealing with it.
While I respect the rights of that portion of the population who prefer the chill machines, I think the whole thing would be way easier to deal with if there were some settings standards to live by. For example, why are some places quite comfortable, and others positively glacial? Of course, a happy medium might never be possible, given differing opinions on what is an appropriate temperature to endure inside, but there is an example we could follow.
Personally, I like the whole "living underground" thing they've got going on in Coober Pedy in Australia's outback. Outside temps can exceed 55 degrees Celsius, and because everyone knows 'inside' is the same old same old, they can attire appropriately: "While several air conditioners struggle to cool a normal house to under 30 degrees in summer, Coober Pedy’s caves remain a comfortable 25 degrees, year-round, free of charge." Way more civilised, despite the reference to the homes as "caves".
Not everyone will agree with me that AC is NN (not necessary), and I'm not about to try and convince anyone by debating the relevant health, environmental, cost and functional pros and cons.
My ask is simple. If we have to live with those cool contraptions during the summer, can we please ease up on the Brrr! factor a tad? I'll still bring my extra layer, but I'd like not to have to pile it on every time I go inside.
Of course, the alternative is to let me at the controls, but given my penchant for turning the things off completely ....
Most places I go, it is apparent that no one is either at the controls or has any idea how to operate the darned things. Usually, the first indication is my reaching for the cardigan or jacket or polar suit I've lugged with me to the location. Never leave home without one or the other, I always say.
Restaurants and cafes are by far the worst offenders, but so, too, are some function rooms, friends' homes, and shops and malls.
Back in Oz, we survived our youth air-conditioner free. Fans were capable substitutes, as were wet face washers, cool evening breezes, and my dad's favourite - dealing with it.
While I respect the rights of that portion of the population who prefer the chill machines, I think the whole thing would be way easier to deal with if there were some settings standards to live by. For example, why are some places quite comfortable, and others positively glacial? Of course, a happy medium might never be possible, given differing opinions on what is an appropriate temperature to endure inside, but there is an example we could follow.
Personally, I like the whole "living underground" thing they've got going on in Coober Pedy in Australia's outback. Outside temps can exceed 55 degrees Celsius, and because everyone knows 'inside' is the same old same old, they can attire appropriately: "While several air conditioners struggle to cool a normal house to under 30 degrees in summer, Coober Pedy’s caves remain a comfortable 25 degrees, year-round, free of charge." Way more civilised, despite the reference to the homes as "caves".
Not everyone will agree with me that AC is NN (not necessary), and I'm not about to try and convince anyone by debating the relevant health, environmental, cost and functional pros and cons.
My ask is simple. If we have to live with those cool contraptions during the summer, can we please ease up on the Brrr! factor a tad? I'll still bring my extra layer, but I'd like not to have to pile it on every time I go inside.
Of course, the alternative is to let me at the controls, but given my penchant for turning the things off completely ....
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Skin deep
Kylie Minogue is breaking hearts again, but this time, it's not males around the world who are devastated.
It's all the fancy dancy moisturiser companies whose pricey products purport to fix our every flaw.
Yes, Kylie has just announced that she doesn't use any of that stuff, and "prefers to rely on cheap moisturiser to keep wrinkles at bay" (SMH, May 24, 2010). And while she does admit to dabbling with Botox in the past, "she has given up the age-busting injections and would never undergo cosmetic surgery".
I've always admired Kylie - who, at the start of her current career, was affectionately called "the singing budgie" by the Australian media. She knows what she wants and stays true to her course. And now, I feel a certain kinship, given her recently revealed beauty secret.
As someone who has also relied on an inexpensive moisturiser their entire life, I concur with Kylie's assessment that it's all you need for a "near flawless complexion" and a "youthful appearance". Along with a healthy diet and moderate exercise, but then, you already knew that, right?
Clearly, us Aussie girls know what's best for our skin - and it's not spending wads of cash on expensive magic elixirs. Pond's Cold Cream for 41-year-old Kylie and Soul Pattinson's Sorbolene for 52-year-old me. Both reliable, cheap and proven - if we do say so ourselves.
So, next time you stock up, don't bypass the cheap just because it is. It might prove to be the best friend your skin ever had.
It's all the fancy dancy moisturiser companies whose pricey products purport to fix our every flaw.
Yes, Kylie has just announced that she doesn't use any of that stuff, and "prefers to rely on cheap moisturiser to keep wrinkles at bay" (SMH, May 24, 2010). And while she does admit to dabbling with Botox in the past, "she has given up the age-busting injections and would never undergo cosmetic surgery".
I've always admired Kylie - who, at the start of her current career, was affectionately called "the singing budgie" by the Australian media. She knows what she wants and stays true to her course. And now, I feel a certain kinship, given her recently revealed beauty secret.
As someone who has also relied on an inexpensive moisturiser their entire life, I concur with Kylie's assessment that it's all you need for a "near flawless complexion" and a "youthful appearance". Along with a healthy diet and moderate exercise, but then, you already knew that, right?
Clearly, us Aussie girls know what's best for our skin - and it's not spending wads of cash on expensive magic elixirs. Pond's Cold Cream for 41-year-old Kylie and Soul Pattinson's Sorbolene for 52-year-old me. Both reliable, cheap and proven - if we do say so ourselves.
So, next time you stock up, don't bypass the cheap just because it is. It might prove to be the best friend your skin ever had.
Monday, May 17, 2010
End of an era
News that the original Law and Order series has been cancelled after an incredible 20 years' run did nothing to make my day.
The initial shock has worn off, but the thought of no more Jack McCoy and crew still hangs heavy on my heart. I have grown to love those people, think of them as family, albeit in an weekly kind of way, and had forlorn hopes that the show would stay around until I became a golden girl.
Law and Order nights took priority over having a life, and even though recording was an option, I generally opted for the 'live' viewing, following the show as it jumped around, and staying true to the original, notwithstanding the relentless enticement of the spinoffs. From start to finish, the characters were great, the stories engaging, the formula gold.
That it didn't even get the courtesy of enough advance warning so it could wrap up with a concluding storyline, and that it wasn't allowed to fulfill its goal of going one more year than Gunsmoke, is certainly disappointing for me.
But you've gotta love Dick Wolf, whose simple response was, "Never complain, never explain." Classy!
Law and Order is almost single-handedly responsible for shaping and maintaining my freelance schedule. When I moved my office home so I could be here for my epileptic canine companion, I needed a reason to stay seated at my desk until a reasonable amount of time had passed. With Sydney sleeping soundly on the sofa, I found that I could work a solid six and a half hours with barely an interruption, as long as the reward was she and I sitting together and watching Law and Order while we had lunch.
When that was over, off we'd trot for a walk to clear our minds and ponder our afternoon - hers back on the sofa, mine back at my desk.
I doubt I would have been as successful as I was without my telegenic companion. Interesting then, that now I am pursuing a slightly new direction - still with the same schedule - Law and Order, as I know it, has taken a new direction of its own - to Los Angeles.
Tempting as it will be to tune in and check it out, I'm sorry to say that I feel such a connection with the original series, you'll probably find me instead staying tuned to the repeats at noon, enjoying the good old days with those I know and love.
See you there, Jack. And thanks for everything, Mr Wolf.
The initial shock has worn off, but the thought of no more Jack McCoy and crew still hangs heavy on my heart. I have grown to love those people, think of them as family, albeit in an weekly kind of way, and had forlorn hopes that the show would stay around until I became a golden girl.
Law and Order nights took priority over having a life, and even though recording was an option, I generally opted for the 'live' viewing, following the show as it jumped around, and staying true to the original, notwithstanding the relentless enticement of the spinoffs. From start to finish, the characters were great, the stories engaging, the formula gold.
That it didn't even get the courtesy of enough advance warning so it could wrap up with a concluding storyline, and that it wasn't allowed to fulfill its goal of going one more year than Gunsmoke, is certainly disappointing for me.
But you've gotta love Dick Wolf, whose simple response was, "Never complain, never explain." Classy!
Law and Order is almost single-handedly responsible for shaping and maintaining my freelance schedule. When I moved my office home so I could be here for my epileptic canine companion, I needed a reason to stay seated at my desk until a reasonable amount of time had passed. With Sydney sleeping soundly on the sofa, I found that I could work a solid six and a half hours with barely an interruption, as long as the reward was she and I sitting together and watching Law and Order while we had lunch.
When that was over, off we'd trot for a walk to clear our minds and ponder our afternoon - hers back on the sofa, mine back at my desk.
I doubt I would have been as successful as I was without my telegenic companion. Interesting then, that now I am pursuing a slightly new direction - still with the same schedule - Law and Order, as I know it, has taken a new direction of its own - to Los Angeles.
Tempting as it will be to tune in and check it out, I'm sorry to say that I feel such a connection with the original series, you'll probably find me instead staying tuned to the repeats at noon, enjoying the good old days with those I know and love.
See you there, Jack. And thanks for everything, Mr Wolf.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Roll a different style
Ever been caught off guard by a comment that really got you thinking?
While watching Inner Space after one of the last episodes of Lost, which I have faithfully followed from the very beginning, guest host Daragh Sankey suggested that Jack was the candidate. When Teddy pointed out that neither Jack's moral fibre nor his Hippocratic Oath would allow him to sit back while humans slaughtered each other, Daragh concluded that Jack would perhaps "roll a different style".
Ooh, nice one, Daragh. Four little words that completely open the door to ramping things up a bit, regardless of what is expected and the way things are 'normally' done. Your own stamp, your own style, your own seal of approval. The possibilities are endless.
In the midst of my sabbatical, I took those words to heart when a fortuitous circumstance led me to conclude that some of where I am right now is at the behest of others' expectations and assumptions. That simple realisation reinforced my intent to roll a different style and go wherever it leads me.
Why don't you roll a different style today, and let others see where it takes you.
While watching Inner Space after one of the last episodes of Lost, which I have faithfully followed from the very beginning, guest host Daragh Sankey suggested that Jack was the candidate. When Teddy pointed out that neither Jack's moral fibre nor his Hippocratic Oath would allow him to sit back while humans slaughtered each other, Daragh concluded that Jack would perhaps "roll a different style".
Ooh, nice one, Daragh. Four little words that completely open the door to ramping things up a bit, regardless of what is expected and the way things are 'normally' done. Your own stamp, your own style, your own seal of approval. The possibilities are endless.
In the midst of my sabbatical, I took those words to heart when a fortuitous circumstance led me to conclude that some of where I am right now is at the behest of others' expectations and assumptions. That simple realisation reinforced my intent to roll a different style and go wherever it leads me.
Why don't you roll a different style today, and let others see where it takes you.